Just Posted: Olympus Stylus XZ-2 real-world sample images

Just Posted: Our real-world sample images from the Olympus Stylus XZ-2. The XZ-2 builds on the features of one of our favorite compact cameras - the Olympus XZ-1 - adding an improved 12MP CMOS sensor, flip-out touch-screen and innovative dual-mode lens control ring. We've been shooting a range of subjects in a variety of lighting conditions, using various apertures and processing settings on the XZ-2.

Around 1/3 of the shots have high ISO noise reduction (Noise Filter in Olympus terms), turned off - each of which is marked.

There are 33 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

You must be looking at the wrong photos, or your monitor is defective; since most of the comments here, and Robin Wong's blog shots, seem to give strong evidence of the exact opposite! Seriously, examine http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

I'm not impressed at all with the image quality of the Oly XZ-2. I see a lot of smearing of details, very poor IQ at high ISOs, a de-centered lens causing OOF areas, poor color rendition, poor micro-contrast, lots of distortion, etc.

Why in the world would anyone buy this camera when the excellent Sony RX-100 can be had for about the same price and blows the XZ-2's image quality away! This camera would not be desirable even if it was priced at the current XZ1 price of $200, IMO.

Years ago Fujifilm had the best straight out of camera JPEG colors, and still does. I used to like Olympus JPEG colors as well, but not anymore as they have changed for the worse, IMO. I also don't understand the "It's not a Sony" remark. Smart buyers don't reject a better product for the same price because of the name on the outside. That would be just shooting yourself in the foot foolish!

The xz-2 have a sensor which is even a little bit worse than the sensor on the Sony RX100 (which still packs a huge amount of pixels on a much too small area). But the lens is really quite good on the xz-2 and the handling is bound to be a lot better than the strange unengaging handling of the sony rx100. I think most people will enjoy themselves more taking slightly inferior images than they would using the sony.

You must be looking at the wrong photos, or your monitor is defective; since most of the comments here, and Robin Wong's blog shots, seem to give strong evidence of the exact opposite! Seriously, examine http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

This feels a bit lite "odd one out" type quiz. S110 does not belong to this category, G15 and Fuji X10 does, as this is a group of fast-lensed enthusiast compacts. Even at portrait focal lengths (60-100 mm eq), fast lens (combined with image stabilization) allow for low-light usage.

The other category - slow-lensed enthusiast compacts - is populated by S110, Fuji XF1, Sony RX100, Canon G1X. This group is oviously subdivided into two sugdivisions (S110, XF1) vs (RX100 G1X). Former subdivision is characterized by limited low-light capability at tele end. The latter has advantage of bigger sensor, offsetting the small-aperture deficiencies.

@MichaelKJ: I do not see a contradiction to my post. What I said was that S110's low light capability @tele is hampered by having both narrow aperture & small sensor.While P7700, G15, X10, LX7 achieve low-light @tele by virtue of fast lens, RX100@G1X by their sensor size.S110 and XF1 have advante of being small, but their low-light capability list limited to the widest angle.

@Rachotilko: While your point is well taken, I think it makes more sense to compare the low light capabilities of these cameras based on their FF equivalent aperture ranges. For example, the RX100 has a FF equiv. range of F4.9-F13.4 versus the ZX-1's F8.5-F11.8. IMO the RX100's advantage at 28mm of 4.9 vs 8.5 is more significant than the ZX-1's tele advantage of 11.8 to 13.4.

There is no significantly improved high iso. Take a look at the nikon p7700 samples and that's what your going to get. Iso800 is still the max.( but R butler, you are the tester of the camera.) Im basing what i seen from the p7700 which i believe the xz-2 has the same sensor.

Like I said. If you don't need a tilt screen or video. The xz1 would be a good deal.

A tiltable touch-screen is a great compositional tool giving u many perspectives that are harder to get with viewfinder or fixed screen. Only that a *side*-hinging screen is considerably more useful than a vertically hinging on; Olympus did know that once upon a time.

For compact cam video, IMHO the LX7 takes the crown.The S100 video is just not as sharp as 1080p should be and has more noise in low light shooting.

LX7 has an internal ND filter allowing proper shutter speed in bright scenes and it's fast lens allows low ISO in low light scences.LX7 shoots 1080/60p @28mbps using AVCHD format which is more effecient than H.264, but even so the bitrate is not the bottle neck here for IQ.

agreed. the lx7 and this one doesn't give much value. it's as though panny and oly are pulling their punches, probably not to get too close to their m4/3 products.or, they just haven't anticipated an RX100.or, they had it all planned so that consumers fall to this trap then release a bigger sensor next year.

Improved 'High'Iso performance?I can still see chroma and luminus noise in the ISO 100 samples like PA210095. For many years now Olypus PnS cameras deliver great sharp details AND noise even at base Iso. So nothing has changed much here.

I agree on the colors, but think that the lenses are of quite similar quality. Both are very sharp across the frame and with very even performance throughout the focal range.XZ might be ahead a little regarding contrast.

I like my XZ-1, but this one seems far better. Still best if you keep the ISO low, though!

Interesting is the last shot, as it looks like a pixel is dead (above the tower slightly to the right)! Shouldn't happen on a new camera, should it?!

Oh, my error: downloaded the picture and found a Robinson 22, not quite a dead pixel!

The Olympus detachable electronic viewfinder is superb, only bested by the one in the OM-D! Works also on many of the PEN cameras, if not all! The VF-2 is said to be the best, if a bit pricey! VF-3 is a simpler model, not quite as good!The VF-2 fits the Leica X1, too, and, according to Steve Huff, just as good!

Actually the XZ-1 is going to be better at ISO100 vs the XZ-2. CCD's are cleaner and more detailed at the base iso vs a CMOS. The only reason they went with a cmos is for video. But the CCD in the XZ-1 is going to be cleaner at ISO100 and 200. I do expect the XZ-2 to have less color noise at higher ISO's though (400-1600) , might even make ISO1600 usable....thats a big might though! Who know's...

It is possible, but I don't expect to see any noticeable difference. CMOS sensors have improved greatly versus those of a generation or two back. A current CMOS sensor may well have as little noise as an older CCD. At base ISO, most sensors are very clean.

Really like these shots! May well have sold me on the camera before I have even finished evaluating the competition (of which a front viewable flip out display and 1080P video is vital), namely, the Panasonic G5, Samsung EX2F, Nikon 7700 or Canon G1X (although I hear the auto focus on the latter is pants, to use contemporary lexicon.) Only thing missing from the XZ-2 that I hanker for is a viewfinder. Really like putting a camera up to my face, as I am sure most of you concur. Having never owned a detachable VF, can anyone tell me how good they are? Does the one for the XZ display a live image or is it optical with an approximated view?

This is the camera that should have been around when Sandra was posing for me 11 years ago. It looks ideal for indoors with bounce flash and outdoors with a strong fill-in flash (should work with FL-36R). There is continuous exposure variation (the C-2500L had two aperture settings - one for overexposure, one for underexposure), clean shadows, and useable resolution for large prints. And now you also get HD video that makes keeping a budget camcorder unnecessary (the BSI-CMOS sensor sensitivity and speed should avoid focus hunting).

I had the XZ-1 for about a year, and while I loved the lens' sharpness and wide aperture I was never pleased with photo quality above ISO 400, it looked more like a watercolor painting than a photo at 100%. Unfortunately, it looks like XZ-2 suffers the same fate.

That's exactly my point: water color painting results. It seems that Olympus has that legendary portrait set locked on their sensors. Great camera, great set of accessories, but the images look great only on the screen. Mind you, I do not print my images.

Please consider that these images must be JPG out of camera... I don't see the point of judging these pictures, this is definitely an enthusiast camera, and enthusiast photographer use RAW (if you don't, then buy a cheap compact camera). I'm sure you can get better details and less watercolor painting artifacts shooting in RAW and post processing your files on your PC. That's what Robin Wong has been doing in his review and that's why he gets pretty decent quality up to 1600 iso (and he only uses Olympus Viewer, not even Lightroom or Aftershot which might have better noise reduction tools).

I won't take your enthusiast card away, I promise ;) I didn't mean to be bossy in my comment, I just think that when you buy a 600$ compact, you're not a P&S photography amateur. You're more someone who wants to get DSLR image quality everyday in his bag. And DSLR quality comes with the RAW format, JPG samples are a bit useless.

I'm glad they didn't change the best part about the XZ-1, the lens. With competitors starting their zooms at 24mm many wil question this choice, but I say such a great lens should be retained.

The samples look very good, but I'm wondering about the raw from the new sensor, as the XZ-1 sensor was a bit noisy, which is why Olympus used such heavy NR. Perhaps the new 12 mp BSI CMOS sensor will be an improvement.

Anyway, there's a lot to like about this camera. The price is a on the high side, way too close to ILC prices, IMHO.

there is a strange texture in some backgrounds, while there is detail in the subjects suggesting some jpeg compression issue ( last portrait of the woman downloaded is an example of this) , and noise at higher ISO: but how does it compare with G15, X10 and other premium priced cameras? Nice colours OOC, good bokeh, good features....needs a shoot out vs Canon, LX7, XF1 etc!

Taking pictures with a camera is part of the reviewing process. By publishing galleries, and additional p/review content we're just showing you as much as possible, as soon as possible. A review will follow ;)